Okay, I guess that answers my question. Ned's probably doing a good job of mimicking the current state administration. They don't think it's a football team with some academics leeching it. They think it's a football team surrounded by nests of waste, and that waste might as well go into their friend's pockets as those damned elitist lazy union thug pockets.

The motivation is money. in their eyes, we got it and they want it. Everything else is an excuse. Quality, dependability, and usefulness do not even show up on the radar.

Yet both firms say the same policies they support in the UK would be a mistake here in the U.S. (You can see my questions to the firms here and here. AT&T's response is here, while Verizon's is here.)

Verizon told me in its written statement that it flat-out opposes the kind of local-loop unbundling that's reduced prices and increased speeds in Britain "for competitive reasons". Those regulations are "bad public policy and bad news for consumers", Verizon says, which "only benefit a few big phone companies, and those companies do not pass their savings on to consumers." Verizon also claims that "those competitors do not invest in their own networks".

Because competition in the cell market has lowered my costs, right? When I look at my current carrier, US Cellular, and check out the phone plans, what I currently have is now $20 more than I pay because I'm basically grandfathered in. If competition really drives the price down, how do you explain this...

Detritus wrote:So, then, your solution is to put an end to the competition posed by Wiscnet, thereby doing exactly what both articles argue is doomed to failure.

No. I don't have any problem with Wiscnet continuing to exist, as long as institutions are not forced to use it. If they provide better service at a lower price (or even better service at a higher price that is worth the extra cost), good for them.

Ned Flanders wrote: I've had family members work at the UW and the report is that there are nests of waste, corruption and slack in many places.

The biggest wastes I've seen at UW have been management decisions such as their first failed attempt at a new HR & Payroll system. They gave something like $30 million or more to Lawson contractors and then canceled the project after they realized it wasn't going to work. I believe the State DOA and DOT have had similar software failures that wasted many millions of tax-payer dollars.

Yet both firms say the same policies they support in the UK would be a mistake here in the U.S. (You can see my questions to the firms here and here. AT&T's response is here, while Verizon's is here.)

Verizon told me in its written statement that it flat-out opposes the kind of local-loop unbundling that's reduced prices and increased speeds in Britain "for competitive reasons". Those regulations are "bad public policy and bad news for consumers", Verizon says, which "only benefit a few big phone companies, and those companies do not pass their savings on to consumers." Verizon also claims that "those competitors do not invest in their own networks".

Because competition in the cell market has lowered my costs, right? When I look at my current carrier, US Cellular, and check out the phone plans, what I currently have is now $20 more than I pay because I'm basically grandfathered in. If competition really drives the price down, how do you explain this...

Oh yea, blame the government I guess.

You realize that the section you quoted supports my argument, right? Competition has lowered costs in Europe. Verizon claims that it won't be as beneficial in the US for reducing prices. If you don't trust Verizon (and you shouldn't), then you should conclude that they are afraid of competition because it will cause them to lose profits.

Also, the entire article was about broadband internet, not mobile phone service, so read more carefully next time.

Before some of the more perceptive forons jump on me for the apparent inconsistency of a libertarian asking for the government to force the owners of telecom infrastructure to allow competition on their privately-owned networks, please consider that telecom is a tangled mess of laws and regulations already. I consider forced competition for service providers to be a second-best solution to a problem brought on by misplaced regulations in the first place. In a perfect world, government would have no role in the telecom industry at all.

Best we all pay attention. You know those boxes on some of our properties that ya just have no recourse over owing to state legislative action? Well this is all more of all the same pay to play brought to you by the american legislative exchange council, AT&T, and a very large chunk of our grand old "party". I can get behind the innovation of community broadband, I cannot get behind those that "innovate" to take this option away.

Detritus wrote:So, then, your solution is to put an end to the competition posed by Wiscnet, thereby doing exactly what both articles argue is doomed to failure.

No. I don't have any problem with Wiscnet continuing to exist, as long as institutions are not forced to use it. If they provide better service at a lower price (or even better service at a higher price that is worth the extra cost), good for them.

Wiscnet does provide better service at a lower cost, and institutions are not forced to use it. It is a cooperative service that the Republicans are now forcing institutions to give up, and then demanding to know how those institutions are going to pay for the higher-priced, private services. It's all in the article.